Mobile Plate Hunter 900 license plate reader recovers 7 stolen cars

Out in the land where the automobile is King (you know we're talking about California, right?), the LA County Sheriff's Department has begun field testing a license plate scanning device called the Mobile Plate Hunter 900. Apparently in just one night of use (which is based on the Italian post office's character recognition systems) the device was able to accurately scan over 12,000 license plates—which resulted in seven stolen car recoveries, and helped the po-po in making three arrests (including two parolees who showed up at a parole officer's joint in a stolen hooptie). Car thieves privacy advocates, start your engines!

[Via Wired News]

[ChronoZaga @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I'd consider myself a "privacy advocate" but I don't have a problem with this system at all. Privacy is great, but my license plate is fair game (until they add RFID tags to them) if it catches criminals.

[Jesse @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Privacy Advocates? How is this an invasion of privacy? It's an extremely good use of technology, if you ask me, because a license plate is a _very_ public piece of information specifically made for itentification of the vehicle. How does privacy come into that? Especially when it's just a number recognition / plate verification system...

[Matt Gerlach @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I dont see how people can be against this.

You dont have a right to steal a car. If you aren't stealing a car, then you dont have to worry. Its the people who have had done this, that worry.

[Malfoy Roark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Re: 2

Because if a private citizen went and wrote down everyone's plate, looked up the owners of said cars and where they lived, and posted it, people would be pissed.

I've always had an issue with lic plates from day 1. People, not even the cops, should be able to find out I own the car or where the car is registered to unless there is very serious doubt of my ownership of said vehicle or am breaking the law with the vehicle.

[Joshua Ochs @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I also fail to see a "privacy" connection here. What expectation of privacy do you have with your in-plain-view *license plate*?

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

So your car would have those magic plates that only appear when you break the law?

[Chris K @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Problem is, if the cops see a Viper flying down the Interstate at 160MPH and he outruns the squad car, then takes an exit and slows down the the speed limit, he gets off free. They can't prove who it was unless they saw the driver (window tint, anyone?).

And speeding is just a minor offense. What if a cop witnessed a hit and run, but the driver got away? What if a pedestrian witnessed it instead?

I agree that the fact that *I* could look up the identity of the car that cut me off and go to his house and toss a brick in the window is just plain WRONG, but we DO need a highly visible car ID to prevent people from fleeing in their cars.

[Dan Schwartz @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I think this is a great idea - as long as they're only looking for vehicles reported 'stolen.' Becomes another matter entirely if they start using this system to enforce unpaid tickets or some other mundane crap.

[Malfoy Roark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

And while we're wanting to be able to identify people, let's just up and volunteer to wear RFID wrist bracelets so anyone can just scan us to verify who we are. We need a highly visible/easy way to identify the person who is fleeting on foot.

I hope the sarcasm is detected. Preemptively removing privacy JUST in case isn't the way. The problem quickly becomes how far can one(see current administration) go "just in case" someone tries something.

[Tom W @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

It seems like the only people who are against this technology are those who dream up insane scenarios (post #4 by Malfoy Roark), or those with something to hide.

[oshean @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Agreed Dan. And so the slippery slope begins. First used to scan for theft, then used to scan for violators of the law. There is no doubt that the police would constantly scan all vehicles that they encounter. This system would have your ass busted for any outstanding legal infraction that you have on record.

[Andrew @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I would like to point out that anytime one can write an incredibly comedic sentence like "showed up at a parole officer�s joint in a stolen hooptie" and it causes an argument over privacy, great things have accomplished.

[Bogenrief @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

What company is behind the manufacturing and the intellectual property for this device? Is it the government or some private/public corporation? Patented technology? This device could save time and money and if you have nothing to hide, who cares if your plate gets scanned? Unless, like Dan Schwartz said, "its used to enforce upaid tickets or other mundane crap." Unfortunately, it may turn out to be used for that if it can be used to obtain more money from taxpayers in a "justified" manner. Think about how many outstanding parking tickets, etc. there are out there and how much instant revenue could be generated if they could more easily track that money down. Then again, would the money they seek be spent on the means to track it down.

[Bogenrief @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

What company is behind the manufacturing and the intellectual property for this device? Is it the government or some private/public corporation? Patented technology? This device could save time and money and if you have nothing to hide, who cares if your plate gets scanned? Unless, like Dan Schwartz said, "its used to enforce upaid tickets or other mundane crap." Unfortunately, it may turn out to be used for that if it can be used to obtain more money from taxpayers in a "justified" manner. Think about how many outstanding parking tickets, etc. there are out there and how much instant revenue could be generated if they could more easily track that money down. Then again, would the money they seek be spent on the means to track it down.

[Chris K @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

The scenario of someone tracking someone down by their license plate is not insane. I have done it to find out who was stalking me in their car as I walked in a public park with my camera. I took a picture of their car (they didn't like that!) as I left. Turns out it was just some kids fooling around in mom and dad's car.

I could just as easily take a picture of a Ferrari, find out where the owner lives, and go steal his car. Or go stalk that hot chick in the convertible I was next to at the stoplight.

You have to accept that there are SOME losses of privacy you must live with in our society. Do you walk around with a face mask on so people can't take a picture of your face?

The abuse of license plates lies solely in people other than the police being able to use them. Here's a couple of scenarios that are NOT insane, if private individuals are allowed to ID people by license plate:

1) I'm shopping at Target. A Walmart employee drives through the parking lot, taking pictures of each cars' plate, and adds everyone to a mailing list. I get a "10% off for Target customers" coupon the next day.

2) I'm (er, someone else) parked at a strip club. A fundamentalist drives up and records each cars' plate, and the door-to-door salvation salemen show up telling me I (er, the other guy) will be forgiven for my sins of the flesh if I join their church.

[P_S @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

This technology being used to find stolen cars this is great.

I'm sure there are lots of sinister uses for this such as tracking people's movements and using it to profile them, however a car is driven primarily on public roadways and unless you have one-way glass and only leave your car in secret underground parking garages they can do the same thing without this technology.

This is hardly the same thing as having everyone wear RFID wrist bracelets. Besides that would be redundant since we had RFID tags implanted with our German Measles vaccinations.

[Lexis Nexis @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

The Privacy Advocates relationship to this new system stems from basic criminal law, specifically that pertaining to stopping and detaining a person. Police officer's aren't supposed to look up a vehicle's plate number unless they have probable cause to believe there is criminal activity involved. In other words if a police officer pulls someone over after having found out the plate comes back to a known sex offender, for example, who happens to have illegal drugs in the car, they need to show probable cause in court for having looked up the plate in the first plate. Probable cause can be anything from, "he was driving 2 miles over the speed limit in a school zone" to "one of the brake light lenses was broken".

[ladyfox @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Tom W,

So let me see if I understand you correctly. Because someone does not wish for someone in authority to track them easily they have something to hide?

Seriously, are you really that willing to give a complete stranger (anyone can dress up as someone in law enforcement law be damned) you do not know information that could just as easily be used against you? Hon, I envy you for your complete and utter trust to those who are in positions of power.

For me, and I'm sure quite a few others, I do not really trust anyone I do not know. Period. Paranoid? Probably to some but, I will say this at least I'm aware of what is going on in the world around me rather than acting like a nice little sheeple like some enjoy doing.

Look at the current administration we're living under and what they have done to "protect us from terrorism". They're already pushing the National ID card agenda right now and mark my words the RFID tags on ID's has'nt been forgotten. You already have to just about go thru a cavity search just to get on a plane here of late. -_-

Call people like me insane, survival freaks, or whatever label you wish but when you finally wake up to the fact that these people are not entirely looking out for your best interests it'll be too late.

[Potato @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I think the argument in terms of privacy concerns against things like this boils down to. "It's stupidly inefficient (and potentially open to abuse), so do it a different way." It's not that it *is* evil. Just that it's not that great at doing what it does. Of course sometimes, it's utterly useless e.g. Biometric ID Cards. Unfortunately, privacy advocates are not that quick to come up with alternatives. So they just shout about how evil it is over and over again.

There are lots of possible replacements for license plates, but nothing quite as braindead simple. E.g. whatever the equivilent of DNA is for paint. That way if someone crashes into you, or something you own, you can scrape some paint off of it, send it off to a lab and lookup the home address of the offeneder it a database. I never said it would be cheap. Of course this is pointless if the offended is driving away from the scene of a bank robbery, unfortunately scenarious like that *require* some obvious, brainded thing such as a license plate. In situations like that there is not time for complex methods of identification. I suppose security gaurds etc could be armed with a device designed to impact with a car, collect a paint sample and fall to the ground though.

[Neo541 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I think there's a few people off the deep end here. Chris K #13

Who the heck said this is going to be used by "Walmart" employees and "fundamentalists???" This is being used by *police*. There are many things police have access to that the "Walmart" employees don't, so why would this be any different?

I have no problem with police being able to scan license plates. Even for unpaid speeding tickets ! You do realize that it is illegal not to pay a speeding ticket, right?

Bottom line, it's just an easier, quicker, and cheaper (in the long run) way for police to do what they do already. The only people who have something to fear are people who drive around while committing crimes...Simple as that.

Now, if someone showed me how they were going to give this to all Walmart employees, i'll be up in their grill, that's for sure.

[Trevor @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

In the United States, driving a motor vehicle is considered a privaledge, not a right (ask any cop). I don't think this violates your right to privacy because you're not forced to drive a vehicle.

[yuppicide @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I've had this idea for many, many, years. I should have patented it. My idea was the exact same thing, but I also wanted a way it could transfer information from a moving vehicle to a police car. So, if an officer is on the side of the road and cars are whizzing by he can quickly jump into action.

[I'm With Stupid @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

"This system would have your ass busted for any outstanding legal infraction that you have on record."

Holy Cow! You mean that they might use this to enforce the law?!? We MUST keep such technology out of the hands of Law Enforcement!!!

[applesucks @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Do they teach all cops to stand like that in the academy?

[archie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

We've had this a while in the UK. Works fantastic - it only flags 'stolen' cars (I think) but believe it or not people driving round in stolen cars tend to have other things on their record too. So the owner gets their car back, the police clear up a few extra crimes, everyone's happy (well almost).

[John Ormsby @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

There's enough fertilizer in these posts to cover my entire back yard. Driving is a privile, but that doesn't mean police can pull you over anytime they want. When are people going to realize there's more to life than one line sound bytes.

[Holy misconceptions Batman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Malfoy Roark, the difference between a car and a pedestrian is this: a car can be lethal when misused AND allows the perpetrator to get away quickly. A pedestrian needs a gun, and can't run as fast a mere cop on bicycle.

Chris K, if civilians can find out a car owner's name and address, the real problem is that the car registry database is not being protected properly, it's NOT a problem with the LP system itself. Also, you don't seem to know criminals (a good thing). They don't need info from the LP to steal a Ferrari. They just follow the car home.

Lexis Nexis, the probable cause is still there. If the system scans the LP and flashes "stolen car", that's probable cause. If the system scans the LP and flashes "previous offender", that's not good enough and the officer should just keep going. Yes, the officer can find some minor problem to serve as probable cause, but that happens already, e.g. to those of us with dark skin living in parts of USA.

The only privacy concern I can think of, is if this system is installed everywhere (or at least major streets and highways) to track all cars' movements.

[Tom W @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

"Driving is a privile, but that doesn't mean police can pull you over anytime they want." -John Ormsby (previous post)

Who said anything about police pulling people over any time they want? The technology being discussed will tell police whether or not the license plate number is connected to any legal issues. If an issue is found, then that is enough reason to pull someone over. What's wrong with that? It seems like some of the posters here think people should have a right to keep their crimes hidden from the police. And a number of other clueless posters seem to think this technology will be made available to the general public.

I think it's pathetic when people cry about privacy rights when they are actually more concerned about having to pay their parking tickets...

[boynamedsue @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

the technology in general i guess could have negative applications. If police cruisers and random checkpoints along highways all utilize this technology, the department of fatherland security or whatever you happen to be afraid of could keep pretty good tabs on where you go.

[Chris K @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Neo541, I have never said this before, but read my post again. Seriously. Did you read one paragraph and ignore the rest? Cause you totally flew off the handle. I said:

> The abuse of license plates lies solely in
> people other than the police being able to use
> them. Here's a couple of scenarios that are
> NOT insane, *****if private individuals are
> allowed to ID people by license plate:*****

Read between the stars. I was trying to say that this technology could be very easily abused. These are hypothetical situations that certainly would arise if it were easy for private citizens to utilize a license plate scanner and a license plate database to get information on cars. Look at the distance companies go to get targeted marketing information. You can't tell me that Walmart wouldn't want the address of everyone who shops at Target. (Again, FOR EXAMPLE.)

Batman, the license plate system IS insecure... that's the problem.

And John, I disagree that driving is a privilege. If I built a car off on my farm, the government has no right to tell me that I can't drive it around my property. True, public highways are the property of the State, but driving isn't a privilege just because the government forces you to pay fees to drive on their roads.

[Jesse @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

The odd thing is that yes, we do demand the right to get away with breaking the law.

Take the NJ Turnpike -- or any toll road, for that matter -- for example. It would be trivial for them to timestamp the toll-card you pick up (or your EZ Pass) when you get on the highway, then do some simple math when you get off: was your average speed more than the speed limit? Yes? Pay your fine right now, or we impound your car.

Presto -- no more speeding. (OK, more like a pay-to-speed system, but that's beside the point.) And all without any invasion of privacy, as they don't need to know who you are to fine you for speeding. You could even pay your fine in cash.

The state makes a mint, traffic safety improves, laws are obeyed.

Why hasn't this happened? Because people would lose their shit. Nobody wants every law enforced all the time -- not even the cops.

[fdisk @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

#14 - They already do that in Missouri, Chris, albeit they have a different means to the same end. (for the purposes of this post, They refers to a church group) They don't nab your license plate and track it down. They have a very dedicated group of individuals who sit in cars parked in the street and follow the individuals home, then send pictures of the individual leaving the parking lot to the homes of those individuals. Fox 2 in St. Louis (I believe it was Fox, might have been a different station, but I think it was them) had a story on it several months ago. Whether the technology is there or not, people will find a way to get done what they want.

[spike117 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

I don't think this has anything to do with privacy. It is not in the same vien as using infared to search your house for pot, that is invasive technology (say the cops used infared to check if your wearing your seatbelt, that would be invasive). And by the way, anything that is in plain sight (such as a license plate) can be searched by cops anytime they want. This isnt about privacy, because the license plate isnt in your car. Its not private information.
I dont like the arguement of "if you dont do anything wrong you shouldnt have anything to worry about" because that is a slippery slope. However in this case I do agree with the use of plain sight evidence being used to help fight crime.

[Mik @ Dec 19th 2005 1:01AM]

Italy has two police forces, one of which is Carabinieri. Almost every Carabinieri car has, on top of it, one of these scanners. They started mounting them years ago. Under sunlight you barely notice the scanners, you just see their dark red lenses under the siren, pointing in various directions all around the car. When you cross them at night you barely see their reddish light beams and you know you are being scanned. Looks very Big Brother to me, although I have no problem as long as it's only used to catch thieves and similar. But if they start storing these numbers, and they can reconstruct where you have been five years ago, and then this data is misused? What if they start installing these units in small standalone boxes, rather than on police cars? In Italy nobody seems to care much. It's been there for years, apparently well-accepted. Or perhaps barely noticed?